the inq has officially lost it:
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33131
Printable View
the inq has officially lost it:
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=33131
Just to confirm what we already know, pulled this out randomly out of the JPEG.
A d o b e P h o t o s h o p C S 2 8BIM ÿá:³http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/ <?xpacket begin="" id="W5M0MpCehiHzreSzNTczkc9d"?>
<x:xmpmeta xmlns:x="adobe:ns:meta/" x:xmptk="3.1.1-112">
<rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#">
<rdf:Description rdf:about=""
xmlns:xapMM="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/mm/"
xmlns:stRef="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/sType/ResourceRef#">
<xapMM:DocumentID>uuid:EF841D94DD11DB118753F8B3571 ACFC3</xapMM:DocumentID>
<xapMM:InstanceID>uuid:F0841D94DD11DB118753F8B3571 ACFC3</xapMM:InstanceID>
<xapMM:DerivedFrom rdf:parseType="Resource">
<stRef:instanceID>uuid:6F30EA6FDD11DB118753F8B3571 ACFC3</stRef:instanceID>
<stRef:documentID>uuid:6F30EA6FDD11DB118753F8B3571 ACFC3</stRef:documentID>
</xapMM:DerivedFrom>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:about=""
xmlns:xap="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/">
<xap:CreateDate>2006-07-12T20:38:45+01:00</xap:CreateDate>
<xap:ModifyDate>2006-07-12T20:38:45+01:00</xap:ModifyDate>
<xap:MetadataDate>2006-07-12T20:38:45+01:00</xap:MetadataDate>
<xap:CreatorTool>Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows</xap:CreatorTool>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:about=""
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<dc:format>image/jpeg</dc:format>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:about=""
xmlns:photoshop="http://ns.adobe.com/photoshop/1.0/">
<photoshop:ColorMode>3</photoshop:ColorMode>
<photoshop:History/>
<photoshop:ICCProfile>sRGB IEC61966-2.1</photoshop:ICCProfile>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:about=""
xmlns:tiff="http://ns.adobe.com/tiff/1.0/">
<tiff:Orientation>1</tiff:Orientation>
<tiff:XResolution>720000/10000</tiff:XResolution>
<tiff:YResolution>720000/10000</tiff:YResolution>
<tiff:ResolutionUnit>2</tiff:ResolutionUnit>
<tiff:NativeDigest>256,257,258,259,262,274,277,284 ,530,531,282,283,296,301,318,319,529,532,306,270,2 71,272,305,315,33432;C19DD7BD9127F41A387D1FB0732D6 EB1</tiff:NativeDigest>
</rdf:Description>
<rdf:Description rdf:about=""
xmlns:exif="http://ns.adobe.com/exif/1.0/">
<exif:PixelXDimension>1600</exif:PixelXDimension>
<exif:PixelYDimension>1200</exif:PixelYDimension>
<exif:ColorSpace>1</exif:ColorSpace>
INQ totally :banana::banana::banana::banana:ed up by XS :fact: :D
@gautam
im a noob so what does that mean? are those the stuff that were changed to the pic?
The defense story of Fuad wich RAMMAN put in his reply is kind of retarted.
The stuff in that story only makes Fuad look like an idi*t.
He makes it look like CEOs and VPs only talk to them.
damn half of their so called interviews or whatever with them people are taken from other sites or are short brief talks wich cant be called a serious interview.
Fuad says: i dont have any idea why i should bother photshopping.
Yeah it doesnt really look like he did bother tbh.
Fuad says: He wouldnt benefit from making up storys etc.
Yes he would, TheInq is a commercial site and this crap generates traffic wich gets em cash so yes it does profit him.
Edit:
each time a site or company gets caught lying they have 2 choices.
1: get straight and confess u lied.
2: stick to ur story even tho ur caught with ur pants down and turn it all around and talk bad about the ones that are trashing you.
nr 2 can be pulled of but TheInq doesnt seem to be skilled enough to pull it of.
They would have been smarter going with nr1.
if its edited in photoshop, i think the adobe photoshop tags get added to the JPEG, he's viewing the file in notepad, and sees all that
looks like it(ATI one) was edited on July 12th, @ 8:38 PM :rofl:
Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows 2006:07:12 20:38:45
Nvidia one possibly edited also?
Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows 2006:07:12 20:35:30
might explain why the photoshop was so bad, if it was done in 3 minutes
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starscream
Quote:
Originally Posted by `odin
dude, deffiently uncalled for.
quit being a d!ck, you have no right to say stuff to other members like that.
i dont think ive seen one informative post from you yet.:slapass:
EDIT: i just went through ALL your posts, and they are almost entirely spam. given your registration date, you deffiently give off the auroa of being a scammer looking to spam his way past 100 posts and into the buy and sell forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WeStSiDePLaYa
The image was clearly photoshopped....
oh, and I reported him as a spammer....
hmm, are you talking about TheInquirer, or nVidia? same holds true for both, does it not?Quote:
Originally Posted by Starscream
think we should wait for the chips to fall and not flame and speculate? oh wait, that makes too much sense..
I love they way that in their rebuttal they only quote the single stupdest comment they could, as oppsed to the many intelligent and well thought out e-mails that they no doubt recieved.
I sent my own explaining what has been said in this thread and warning them that there are many photoshop experts out there who can tell a fake instantly. Their feeble attempts at hiding the truth are frankly unbelievable. I guess I'm finally going to take the INQ off my bookmarks list.
I''m sorry, but this whole thing is stupid, and shows one of the main problems with the with instant communication, opinion is taken as fact and no one is given time to explain themselves. 24 hours ago people were ready to burn down the nvidia HQ over this, now fuad has basically been labeled an enemy of the state. I personally and going to try waiting a day or three and see what come of it, I'm sure that there COULD BE a valid explanation, and that all parties involved deserve the benifit of the doubt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VulgarHandle
atm Theinquirer.
And why wait? Compaire the pics urself and u can see with the naked eye that something is wrong about it.
and the info posted in this thread also clearly points towards the fact that one of them 2 pics is faked.
i think most people here annoyed about this but i gotta admit i am quite excited this should be a fun story to follow. Should be interasting to see who saves face in the end.
they are a joke and even more funny their response.... everyone has the proof that is photoshopped and they said some stupid lie....
I never saw anybody except some fanbois making a big fuss. Maybe I just go on intelligent forums:cool:Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuperman
On the other hand the INQ is the one that is really at fault here. OK, I was a bit hasty to say it was them who made the forgery, but if their response had been apologetic we would have know it was an honest mistake. Instead he makes a poor attempt to cover his tracks and blames the people who actually know what they are talking about.
I'm sorry but "the aliens brain controllers made me do it" is about the only thing that could excuse his actions, but that explaination might be suspect as well :p:
I admit that faud could have used a more diplomatic tone in his response, but he claims it is not a forgery (sp?) and he has proof, I am holding judgement until after he shows his proof (cause my opinion matters SOOO much...). Either way I agree, he has handle this in a very unprofessional way, and this will inevitable hurt him in the short run, if he's wrong it will definately hurt him in the long run. between all the jumping to conclusions and flying off the handle, everyone in this forum should be in great shape.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobalt
more likely the entire image was "softened" then part of the ati image was reverted back to the original.
No sharpen tool involved.
i almost feel like taking the origional and owning theinq myself. they really should be more careful about lies
If you look at the spray from the boat you can clearly see artifacts caused by the sharpen tool. Not to mention the difference patterning looks exactly like what I'd expect from a sharpen mask (or brush)Quote:
Originally Posted by STEvil
something tells me it was purposeful, and this article was meant to humor people who didn't take it seriously :toast:Quote:
Originally Posted by Starscream
I detected very little humor. I guess that could have been the intent but they are carrying this story even futher than they usually do. I wonder if they'll ever speak of it again.
why? you guys really think he's got nothing better to do but entertain you fools with photochops. Oh pleaseQuote:
Originally Posted by RAMMAN
INQ is the best news site overall and i'd honestly rather have their 'early' news over any tool that reports after manufacture's lawyers give them the nod :rolleyes:
you obviously havent read this thread then. I assume the photoshop job was magically performed then?Quote:
Originally Posted by dinos22
Wow Kobalt, you have nearly 1000 posts and a name very similar to mine and I never noticed you before lol :p:
Haha yea...ive noticed you before. You probably havent noticed me because I'm only active every once in a while. New hardware will come out and I'll be active again and then I won't post for a month or two. I only average ~1 post per day.
the interesting thing about this is that the "screenshots" in question are in a follow on story. the Original Fuad released a while back. I think that Rydermark is the ones that threw this one out.
Although I have to say that Fuad shouldhave checked his images before publishing this.